Recommitted Dustin Martin [re-signed]

[ReaperX]

Every club's supporters think that their case is going to be different. That their club will match the offer and force a trade for market value. Has never happened and the closest anyone has ever got to forcing a trade was Adelaide for Dangerfield - and they didn't even get close to his true value.

If/When Martin leaves, it will be no different.

You mean like the time when Hawthorn tried to offer Vickery a deal over 3 years, but then we discovered that the compo we'd get wouldn't be suitable to what we wanted, so we advised the Hawks that unless they changed up the offer to Vickery so that we would get our desired compo, that we'd be matching the offer and forcing you to trade?

And then you changed up the offer to Vickery just as we instructed you to do, you got your man, and we got exactly what we wanted for the player that was leaving?

Yeah that situation never ever happens!

 

[Sinjin Smith]

If Dusty leaves, it's probably because we've had a very poor year on the field, and the pick we would get, based on the reported value of the contract we've offered and adjusting for what that offer would need to be to get him out of the club, would most likely get us a pick before our 1st round pick in 2017, which if we've had a bad year, would be probably something like a Pick 3 or 4.

So what I'd say would happen would be that we'd accept that compo, and then trade the Pick 3 or 4 that we get for 2 later 1st round picks + maybe a swap of a 3rd pick of ours to a 2nd pick of another clubs, or something of the sort.

Thus, we'd end up getting 2 "1st round picks" for Dusty when all is said and done.

Does that explain it, or do I need to clarify anything else?

I thought you meant Richmond would get two round one picks via compensation, not through further trading. Hence my post.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Half your side I reckon

Well, you're bound to be disappointed in that case.

Easy to say when you have had only lost one decent player, there is no one on your list that comes close to Martin and if you did have anyone close you would want two first rounds for him.

It's easy for me to say it, because it's true.

You might want the moon but you're not going to get it.

How many players WC have lost doesn't make a skerrick of difference. The pattern repeats across various clubs and various supporter bases year in, year out.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

I've already answered your question, considering the offer that has already been put to Dusty by the Tigers, it's going to require something a fair bit bigger for him to leave anyway, so if that offer comes, we'll go to the AFL and find out if that would get us the compensation we desire.

Lance Franklin got a million bucks a year and that translated to a first-round pick as compensation. Do you think you're going to get more than that?

If that compensation wasn't what we wanted, we would match the offer, and then make the club who's committed to Dusty trade us what we require to satisfy losing a superstar of the competition.

And this is where you revert to the fantasy of simply "naming your price" as though you'll have the leverage to do that.

If Martin is uncontracted and a free agent and has asked to leave, you'll be getting unders in return. Just as Adelaide did when they traded out Dangerfield.

If that didn't happen, we would talk to Dusty, convince him to stay (this isn't a go home thing like it was for Danger remember) and then retain his services..

Wow. Problem solved.

You may not be aware of this, but Richmond have an incredibly good history of retaining their star players recently when they've been out of contract:

- Trent Cotchin after a big money offer from Hawks.
- Alex Rance after a big money offer from the Lions.
- Jack Riewoldt after several big money offers from Fremantle.
- Dustin Martin himself when he was courted by GWS.
- Brett Deledio in 2012 signed a long term deal rather than leave when he was offered big money by GWS the first time. And when he did finally leave last year, it was on mutual terms, and it was after his peak footballing days, yet we still got a 1st round pick for him.

That's great.

Which of these were free agents at the time?

Why are any of these examples relevant?

Perhaps what we actually get won't be specifically the 2 picks, it may end up being an amalgamation of things, like a very promising "already drafted" youngster from said club + their 1st round pick. Of course I don't know the details of exactly what the compensation would look like. But considering how much we rate Dusty, and how much the competition as a whole rate's Dusty, we'll get what we want for him.

Again, you insist you'll "get what we we want for him".

It's like you haven't paid attention to player movement over the past 20 years and you're tuning in for the first time, with a bunch of assumptions and expectations clearly at odds with what's happened previously.

If Martin is uncontracted and a free agent and wants out, Richmond won't be naming their price. They'll be getting unders in return, as every club does in that position.

The gist of what I'm saying is, whatever it looks like, Richmond will get the maximum value compensation, because if there's one thing Richmond is good at, it's this type of stuff. And I've clearly provided you evidence of this within this post.

Yeah, you guys are absolute ninjas at the trade table. You got Chris Yarran for the bargain price of a first-rounder and he was a star in the 0 games he played for you.

Again though, and sorry for the spoiler alert ahead of time, but Dusty really isn't going anywhere dude, so this will all be a moot point soon anyway!

That may be the case.

My argument is that if he goes, Richmond won't be naming their price as you seem to believe they will.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

If a club signs dusty do they have to sign Mark Williams as well

Along with their magic balls.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Every club's supporters think that their case is going to be different. That their club will match the offer and force a trade for market value. Has never happened and the closest anyone has ever got to forcing a trade was Adelaide for Dangerfield - and they didn't even get close to his true value.

If/When Martin leaves, it will be no different.

But Balmey!

 

[Sweet Jesus]

You mean like the time when Hawthorn tried to offer Vickery a deal over 3 years, but then we discovered that the compo we'd get wouldn't be suitable to what we wanted, so we advised the Hawks that unless they changed up the offer to Vickery so that we would get our desired compo, that we'd be matching the offer and forcing you to trade?

And then you changed up the offer to Vickery just as we instructed you to do, you got your man, and we got exactly what we wanted for the player that was leaving?

Yeah that situation never ever happens!

Sorry, what?

Richmond got a second-rounder in compensation for Vickery. They didn't force a trade to get market value.

If Martin leaves as a free agent, then Richmond would be absolutely right to expect a first-round pick as compensation, assigned based on their finishing position. But most Tigers fans on here seem to want more than that.

 

[ReaperX]

I thought you meant Richmond would get two round one picks via compensation, not through further trading. Hence my post.

Nah I didn't, I meant in an overall sense we'll get the maximum value, and seeing as he won't leave if we go alright in 2017, it's likely that if he is leaving, it means we'll have been Bottom 4 or 5, so we should get a pick prior to our 1st round which is essentially worth 2 later 1st round picks.

I can see why you thought differently with my previous wording though, so all good!

 

[ReaperX]

Sorry, what?

Richmond got a second-rounder in compensation for Vickery. They didn't force a trade to get market value.

If Martin leaves as a free agent, then Richmond would be absolutely right to expect a first-round pick as compensation, assigned based on their finishing position. But most Tigers fans on here seem to want more than that.

You obviously don't follow football!

The deal that Vickery was offered INITIALLY by the Hawks would have gotten us a worse compensation than we wanted, so we told Hawthorn we would match unless they fixed the offered deal to Vickery so that we'd get the compo we wanted.

Hawks complied so it didnt go to a trade, but if they didnt comply, we'd have blocked the move and forced them to trade.

Just get it through your head matey, Tigers aren't taking any less than exactly what we want should he decide to go!

Sorry that annoys you

 

[Sweet Jesus]

You obviously don't follow football!

Because I pointed out that your response wasn't actually a cogent response to anything?

The deal that Vickery was offered INITIALLY by the Hawks would have gotten us a worse compensation than we wanted, so we told Hawthorn we would match unless they fixed the offered deal to Vickery so that we'd get the compo we wanted.

Hawks complied so it didnt go to a trade, but if they didnt comply, we'd have blocked the move and forced them to trade.

Sure. How does this rebut the other poster who said clubs rarely force a trade and get market value?

That didn't happen in the example you're presenting.

For Vickery, you got FA compensation in the form of a second-rounder. How does this relate to the scenario with Martin? If Martin leaves as a free agent, you'll get a first-rounder as compensation, as opposed to a second-rounder. And that would still be unders.

So what do you think your Vickery example demonstrates?

Just get it through your head matey, Tigers aren't taking any less than exactly what we want should he decide to go!

Sorry that annoys you

This is sheer fantasy on your part.

 

[ReaperX]

Sorry, what?

Richmond got a second-rounder in compensation for Vickery. They didn't force a trade to get market value.

If Martin leaves as a free agent, then Richmond would be absolutely right to expect a first-round pick as compensation, assigned based on their finishing position. But most Tigers fans on here seem to want more than that.

If Dusty is leaving, it means we'll have finished probably Bottom 4 or 5, which means that our first normal pick will be #4 or #5.

We will ensure that if Dusty does leave, that the compensation we receive will be the highest possible, which is a 1st round pick prior to the start of our normal 1st rounder. On calculation that would be a Top 5 pick, based on finishing Bottom 4.

With that extra Top 5 pick, I imagine we would do a deal to downgrade that pick into 2 later 1st round picks, maybe like 11 and 13 or something like that.

Therefore, Dusty leaves the club, and we (through the art of trading) get 2 picks in the mid 1st round of the draft, to go along with our other 2 first round draft picks that we already have.

Make sense?

 

[cryptor]

You mean like the time when Hawthorn tried to offer Vickery a deal over 3 years, but then we discovered that the compo we'd get wouldn't be suitable to what we wanted, so we advised the Hawks that unless they changed up the offer to Vickery so that we would get our desired compo, that we'd be matching the offer and forcing you to trade?

And then you changed up the offer to Vickery just as we instructed you to do, you got your man, and we got exactly what we wanted for the player that was leaving?

Yeah that situation never ever happens!

1. You didn't match, and there was no trade.
2. You're speculating. That was never reported as happening.

 

[ReaperX]

Because I pointed out that your response wasn't actually a cogent response to anything?

Sure. How does this rebut the other poster who said clubs rarely force a trade and get market value?

That didn't happen in the example you're presenting.

For Vickery, you got FA compensation in the form of a second-rounder. How does this relate to the scenario with Martin? If Martin leaves as a free agent, you'll get a first-rounder as compensation, as opposed to a second-rounder. And that would still be unders.

So what do you think your Vickery example demonstrates?

This is sheer fantasy on your part.

It demonstrates that we're willing to go that far if we need to, now in the Vickery scenario it DIDN'T need to, but only because Hawthorn complied with our request, and that's the point I'm making.

We didn't just accept the initial compo that we'd get, we made Hawthorn step up and change their offer to Vickery to satisfy what we wanted.

If Hawthorn didn't do that, it would 100% have been matched and gone to trade.

 

[ReaperX]

1. You didn't match, and there was no trade.
2. You're speculating. That was never reported as happening.

The initial Hawthorn offer is proven to have been 3 years at approximately 1 million, that is documented.

It was then changed to 2 years @ 1 million after we looked into what our compo would be for the 3 year deal, and advised Hawthorn that it wasn't going to suit us, and so Hawthorn made the changes. After the fact, there was an AFL investigation into the reasoning why that change occurred, as it could have potentially be seen as tampering with the system.

Do you not remember this happening?

 

[Sweet Jesus]

If Dusty is leaving, it means we'll have finished probably Bottom 4 or 5, which means that our first normal pick will be #4 or #5.

We will ensure that if Dusty does leave, that the compensation we receive will be the highest possible, which is a 1st round pick prior to the start of our normal 1st rounder. On calculation that would be a Top 5 pick, based on finishing Bottom 4.

Sure, you'll get a first-round pick, assigned according to your finishing position. That's what I've been saying. Would you consider that to be adequate compensation?

With that extra Top 5 pick, I imagine we would do a deal to downgrade that pick into 2 later 1st round picks, maybe like 11 and 13 or something like that.

Well, that's got nothing to do with compensation. That's a separate trade.

Therefore, Dusty leaves the club, and we (through the art of trading) get 2 picks in the mid 1st round of the draft, to go along with our other 2 first round draft picks that we already have.

Make sense?

So you are now saying that a first-round pick, assigned before your existing first-rounder, would be acceptable compensation if Martin leaves as a free agent?

I don't think anyone was ever disputing that would be the compensation for Martin. That's a given. It's not going to require Richmond executing some brilliant post-season strategy to achieve that. A first-round pick as FA compensation for Martin is a slam dunk.

The issue was that Richmond fans suggested they should, could and would push for more.

But if you're now saying that a first-rounder would be acceptable FA compensation, then I have no issue with that.

It demonstrates that we're willing to go that far if we need to, now in the Vickery scenario it DIDN'T need to, but only because Hawthorn complied with our request, and that's the point I'm making.

We didn't just accept the initial compo that we'd get, we made Hawthorn step up and change their offer to Vickery to satisfy what we wanted.

If Hawthorn didn't do that, it would 100% have been matched and gone to trade.

So it's irrelevant and not actually a rebuttal of what the other poster said.

You've just said a first-rounder would be sufficient FA compensation for Martin. You're not going to have to do any Jedi mind tricks on anyone to get that.

 

[ReaperX]

Sure, you'll get a first-round pick, assigned according to your finished position. That's what I've been saying. Would you consider that to be adequate compensation?

Well, that's got nothing to do with compensation. That's a separate trade that has nothing to do with FA compensation.

So you are now saying that a first-round pick, assigned before your existing first-rounder, would be acceptable compensation if Martin leaves as a free agent?

I don't think anyone was ever disputing that would be the compensation for Martin. That's a given. It's not going to require Richmond executing some brilliant post-season strategy to achieve that. A first-round pick as FA compensation for Martin is a slam dunk.

The issue was that Richmond fans suggested they should, could and would push for more.

But if you're now saying that a first-rounder would be acceptable compensation, then I have no issue with that.

So it's irrelevant and not actually a rebuttal of what the other poster said.

I've never said anything different to that.

From the beginning I have said that Richmond would get the maximum compensation available, and that it would translate to a value of 2 picks in the 1st round of the draft.

Perhaps my mistake was not elaborating on this, but from the start I have been talking about the ultimate value that we get, when all is said and done.

Technically speaking we won't get more than 1 pick, that is true. But the pick we will get will be worth 2 1st round picks.

Happy to make this clarification, as perhaps this wasn't immediately obvious from the get go, but that's what I've meant throughout this conversation, I've been talking about the value we're going to get.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

I've never said anything different to that.

From the beginning I have said that Richmond would get the maximum compensation available, and that it would translate to a value of 2 picks in the 1st round of the draft.

No. The compensation would be one first-round pick, assigned according to your finishing position.

Whatever you do with that pick subsequently is a different matter. But the FA compensation would be one additional first-round pick, assigned before your existing pick.

Just to be clear, are you saying that one first-round pick, assigned according to your finishing position, would be acceptable FA compensation for Martin?

Perhaps my mistake was not elaborating on this, but from the start I have been talking about the ultimate value that we get, when all is said and done.

We're talking about FA compensation.

Not sure why you'd fold some hypothetical trade into that and prepare it's all one thing when they are clearly two distinct processes.

Technically speaking we won't get more than 1 pick, that is true. But the pick we will get will be worth 2 1st round picks.

Happy to make this clarification, but that's what I've meant throughout this conversation.

So one first-round pick, assigned according to your finishing position, would be acceptable FA compensation for Martin?

It's not going to be hard to get that. That would be routine.

The issue is that Richmond have been suggesting they should push for more.

 

[ReaperX]

Sure, you'll get a first-round pick, assigned according to your finishing position. That's what I've been saying. Would you consider that to be adequate compensation?

Well, that's got nothing to do with compensation. That's a separate trade.

So you are now saying that a first-round pick, assigned before your existing first-rounder, would be acceptable compensation if Martin leaves as a free agent?

I don't think anyone was ever disputing that would be the compensation for Martin. That's a given. It's not going to require Richmond executing some brilliant post-season strategy to achieve that. A first-round pick as FA compensation for Martin is a slam dunk.

The issue was that Richmond fans suggested they should, could and would push for more.

But if you're now saying that a first-rounder would be acceptable FA compensation, then I have no issue with that.

So it's irrelevant and not actually a rebuttal of what the other poster said.

You've just said a first-rounder would be sufficient FA compensation for Martin. You're not going to have to do any Jedi mind tricks on anyone to get that.

There are posters on here suggesting that we will get unders for Dustin Martin.

Unders for Dustin Martin would be one 1st round pick outside the Top 10 picks in the draft, and only that.

Dustin's value is a Top 5 pick in the draft, and a Top 5 pick is worth 2 "mid" 1st rounders when it comes to the points scale.

So whether it's one pure pick at say #4 or #5, or it's two pure picks at say #11 and #14, the value is still two picks in the 1st round at the end of the day.

We won't get 2 pure picks from FA alone, but if you read my posts, I've never claimed that we would. I'm claiming that we won't be getting "unders" for him, which to me is just the one mid 1st round pick. So if it only goes to FA and not to trade, the pick will essentially need to be a Top 5 draft pick as compensation. We will not just accept ANY first round pick.

So the contention to all this will be that if he decides to leave, but we've finished in the Top 6, and THAT'S when we won't accept the compensation from FA and take it to trade, because if our first normal pick is say #13, we're simply not going to accept just Pick #12 as compensation.

But again, if we finish high enough to have Pick #13 as our first round pick, Dusty won't be leaving.

Does that make sense?

 

[cryptor]

The initial Hawthorn offer is proven to have been 3 years at approximately 1 million, that is documented.

It was then changed to 2 years @ 1 million after we looked into what our compo would be for the 3 year deal, and advised Hawthorn that it wasn't going to suit us, and so Hawthorn made the changes. After the fact, there was an AFL investigation into the reasoning why that change occurred, as it could have potentially be seen as tampering with the system.

Do you not remember this happening?

I recall the offer being reported incorrectly before being corrected and then everyone losing their s**t.

But let's say for the sake of argument that it did happen the way you've said.

So after freeing up a heap of cap with trading Mitchell and Lewis away, and Hodge, Burgoyne and Gibson to come, it would have been in Hawthorn's interest to front load Vickery's deal.

So we could have paid him $333k/pa for 3 years and then say another $400k/pa for an additional 2 years down the track. But if that initial 3 year deal meant Richmond might make things difficult for us then it would make perfect sense to shift things around. $500k/pa for 2 years and then an additional 3 years at $267k. End of the day it's $1.8M/5yrs for a structurally important player.

It would then also give Hawthorn a heap of cap space to come along and offer a massive deal to a big name free agent this year...

 

[Sweet Jesus]

There are posters on here suggesting that we will get unders for Dustin Martin.

Unders for Dustin Martin would be one 1st round pick outside the Top 10 picks in the draft, and only that.

Dustin's value is a Top 5 pick in the draft, and a Top 5 pick is worth 2 "mid" 1st rounders when it comes to the points scale.

I'd suggest one additional first-round pick as FA compensation, even if it's pick 5 or 6, would still be unders. But that might be what's on the table.

So whether it's one pure pick at say #4 or #5, or it's two pure picks at say #11 and #14, the value is still two picks in the 1st round at the end of the day.

Stop trying to conflate two separate things.

The FA compensation would be one additional first-rounder. Do you accept this?

Whether you then parlay that into two later picks is a separate matter. Stop treating two distinct things as one bundled transaction.

Do you accept that one additional first-round pick, assigned according to your finishing position, would be adequate FA compensation? Let's say that additional pick works out to be pick 5 or 6. Would you consider that adequate FA compensation?

We won't get 2 pure picks from FA, but if you read my posts, I've never claimed that we would. I'm claiming that we won't be getting "unders" for him, which to me is just the one mid 1st round pick.

So one additional first-round pick, let's assume pick 5 or 6, assigned according to your finishing position, would be adequate FA compensation?

So the contention to all this will be that if he decides to leave, but we've finished in the Top 6, and THAT'S when we won't accept the compensation from FA and take it to trade, because if our first normal pick is say #13, we're simply not going to accept just Pick #12 as compensation.

But again, if we finish high enough to have Pick #13 as our first round pick, Dusty won't be leaving.

Does that make sense?

So one additional first-round pick, let's assume pick 5 or 6, assigned according to your finishing position, would be adequate FA compensation?

 

[ReaperX]

I recall the offer being reported incorrectly before being corrected and then everyone losing their s**t.

But let's say for the sake of argument that it did happen the way you've said.

So after freeing up a heap of cap with trading Mitchell and Lewis away, and Hodge, Burgoyne and Gibson to come, it would have been in Hawthorn's interest to front load Vickery's deal.

So we could have paid him $333k/pa for 3 years and then say another $400k/pa for an additional 2 years down the track. But if that initial 3 year deal meant Richmond might make things difficult for us then it would make perfect sense to shift things around. $500k/pa for 2 years and then an additional 3 years at $267k. End of the day it's $1.8M/5yrs for a structurally important player.

It would then also give Hawthorn a heap of cap space to come along and offer a massive deal to a big name free agent this year...

Firstly, it did happen the way I've said, so there's no need for the "argument's sake" part! but sure, for argument's sake, we'll say we'll only go with it for argument's sake!

You're welcome to spin in that way, however you guys only made the changes after Richmond threatened to match the offer, due to the compensation we'd receive from the initial deal being too low.

And I promise you, if you didn't make those changes, we'd have made you trade for him. Which would have been incredibly difficult for you, because of getting in Mitchell and O'Meara, and is precisely why you chose not to push your luck with us, because you knew you didn't have the ability to satisfy us at the trade table, so you made the changes as subtly as you possibly could to the Vickery deal to keep us on side.

Make of that what you will I guess, but I doubt you'd have changed the details and structure of your initial offer if it wasn't for Richmond standing their ground in regards to wanting better compo...

 

[ReaperX]

I'd suggest one additional first-round pick as FA compensation, even if it's pick 5 or 6, would still be unders. But that might be what's on the table.

Stop trying to conflate two separate things.

The FA compensation would be one additional first-rounder. Do you accept this?

Whether you then parlay that into two later picks is a separate matter. Stop treating two distinct things as one bundled transaction.

Do you accept that one additional first-round pick, assigned according to your finishing position, would be adequate FA compensation? Let's say that additional pick works out to be pick 5 or 6. Would you consider that adequate FA compensation?

So one additional first-round pick, let's assume pick 5 or 6, assigned according to your finishing position, would be adequate FA compensation?

So one additional first-round pick, let's assume pick 5 or 6, assigned according to your finishing position, would be adequate FA compensation?

Okay, I'll answer this as clearly as I can!

One first round pick assigned according to our finishing position, would ONLY be adequate if our finishing position is Bottom 4 or 5.

If we finish mid-table or better, it will not be adequate compensation, because Dustin is worth a Top 5 pick, so we would be pushing for more, whether that be through taking it to a trade, or whatever that ends up looking like.

So the answer to your question is wholly determined on where we finish season 2017.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Okay, I'll answer this as clearly as I can!

One first round pick assigned according to our finishing position, would ONLY be adequate if our finishing position is Bottom 4 or 5.

If we finish mid-table or better, it will not be adequate compensation, because Dustin is worth a Top 5 pick, so we would be pushing for more, whether that be through taking it to a trade, or whatever that ends up looking like.

So the answer to your question is wholly determined on where we finish season 2017.

My question takes account of that contingency around your finishing position so there's no need to dodge it.

One additional first-round pick, let's assume pick 5 or 6, assigned according to your finishing position, would be adequate FA compensation?

It appears you are saying yes, it would be.

 

[cryptor]

Firstly, it did happen the way I've said, so there's no need for the "argument's sake" part! but sure, for argument's sake, we'll say we'll only go with it for argument's sake!

You're welcome to spin in that way, however you guys only made the changes after Richmond threatened to match the offer, due to the compensation we'd receive from the initial deal being too low.

And I promise you, if you didn't make those changes, we'd have made you trade for him. Which would have been incredibly difficult for you, because of getting in Mitchell and O'Meara, and is precisely why you chose not to push your luck with us, because you knew you didn't have the ability to satisfy us at the trade table, so you made the changes as subtly as you possibly could to the Vickery deal to keep us on side.

Make of that what you will I guess, but I doubt you'd have changed the details and structure of your initial offer if it wasn't for Richmond standing their ground in regards to wanting better compo...

Hawthorn just get deals done. Sure, maybe the preference would have been $1M over 3 years rather than 2, but at the end of the day Hawthorn just needed to get it done.

When it comes to Martin he'll be getting a deal no matter where he goes that will see Richmond get the top compensation possible. This will be a first rounder after your first pick. You can spin that pick into whatever you like but that's all it will be.

Richmond won't match. Clubs have shown time and time again that they do not want to risk having to keep a player on a big contract that has shown they want out. It would breed contempt among the list knowing that this player is on mega bucks and isn't committed to the cause. They'll take the pick and they'll move on. Perhaps hoping to land a FA of their own.

 

[ReaperX]

.

My question takes account of that contingency around your finishing position so there's no need to dodge it.

One additional first-round pick, let's assume pick 5 or 6, assigned according to your finishing position, would be adequate FA compensation?

It appears you are saying yes, it would be.

Top 5 pick mate.

The question's answer is based entirely on the second part of the question, the "according to your finishing position" part.

The "additional first round pick" part has almost no bearing, because a first round pick can be anywhere between 1-18, and they have vastly different values.

If we get a Pick 4 or 5, that would be fair compensation for Martin.

But if the FA compo is Pick 12 or 13, due to us having a decent year, it would NOT be fair compensation for Martin.

If it's Pick 4 or 5, then the answer is yes.

If it's Pick 12 or 13, the answer would change to no.

I'm not sure I can be any clearer than that!